Efficiency and evaluation analysis of a network of technology transfer brokers

Technology transfer (TT) brokers are a type of innovation intermediary that is regarded as a facilitator of the interaction between donor and recipient within an innovation process. Yet, little is known about how to analyse their performance and efficiency. This paper aims at modelling a proper production function for the TT brokers, providing insights on how to compare their performance and investigating the influence of external factors on their efficiency, in order to draw useful managerial and policy implications. Data drawn from a survey conducted among the nodes belonging to the technology transfer network IRC (Innovation Relay Centre) have been utilised to investigate how endogenous and exogenous factors may affect brokers’ efficiency. Results showed how brokers can pursue more productive and targeted strategy in order to increase their impact and improve their performance (inter alia, by taking into account a ‘pull’ approach to technology and the need of a long-lasting relationship with the clients – small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in particular). At the policy level, interesting insights are drawn on how to tune existing innovation support initiatives and design new ones from scratch.

[1]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory , 2000 .

[2]  Rory Wolfe,et al.  OMODEL: Stata modules to perform tests on ordered probit and ordered logit models , 1997 .

[3]  Magnus Klofsten,et al.  Creating a bridge between university and industry in small European countries: the role of the Industrial Liaison Office , 1999 .

[4]  Andrew B. Hargadon,et al.  Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. , 1997 .

[5]  Sukanya Kemp,et al.  Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing , 2002 .

[6]  A. Zaheer,et al.  Bridging ties: a source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities , 1999 .

[7]  Lara Penco,et al.  Assisted technology transfer to SMEs: lessons from an exemplary case , 2001 .

[8]  Bo Carlsson,et al.  Technology transfer in United States universities , 2002 .

[9]  L. Freeman.  Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[10]  H. Ernst,et al.  Intermediary Services in the Markets for Technology: Organizational Antecedents and Performance Consequences , 2008 .

[11]  Harold O. Fried,et al.  The Measurement of Productive Efficiency and Productivity Growth , 2008 .

[12]  John Bessant,et al.  Small firms, R&D, technology and innovation in the UK: a literature review , 1998 .

[13]  J. Howells.  Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation , 2006 .

[14]  T. Takalo,et al.  Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy, by Arora, A., Fosfuri, A. and Gambardella, A. Cambridge and London: MIT Press, 2001, xi+338 pp., USD 35.00 (cloth) , 2002 .

[15]  Raphael Kaplinsky,et al.  Europe's Next Step: Organisational Innovation, Competition and Employment , 1995 .

[16]  H. Rush,et al.  Building bridges for innovation: the role of consultants in technology transfer , 1995 .

[17]  A. U.S.,et al.  FORMULATION AND ESTIMATION OF STOCHASTIC FRONTIER PRODUCTION FUNCTION MODELS , 2001 .

[18]  B. Clark.  Creating entrepreneurial universities : organizational pathways of transformation , 1998 .

[19]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[20]  Alexander Kaufmann,et al.  The Role of the Region for Innovation Activities of SMEs , 2001 .

[21]  B. Lundvall,et al.  National systems of production, innovation and competence building , 2002 .

[22]  Graham M. Winch,et al.  The Organization of Innovation Brokers: An International Review , 2007, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[23]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  Knowledge Networks as Channels and Conduits: The Effects of Spillovers in the Boston Biotechnology Community , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[24]  A. Arora,et al.  Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy , 2004 .

[25]  J. Albors *,et al.  Transnational technology transfer networks for SMEs. A review of the state-of-the art and an analysis of the European IRC network , 2005 .

[26]  W. Powell,et al.  Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. , 1996 .

[27]  Hugo Hollanders,et al.  2006 European regional innovation scoreboard , 2006 .

[28]  R. Defillippi,et al.  A bridge over troubled waters: bridging organisations and entrepreneurial opportunities in emerging sectors , 2007 .

[29]  F. Rothaermel,et al.  University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature , 2007 .

[30]  Owen-SmithJason,et al.  Knowledge Networks as Channels and Conduits , 2004 .

[31]  Francis Bidault,et al.  Technology transactions: networks over markets , 1994 .

[32]  H. Chesbrough.  Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape , 2006 .

[33]  P. M. Pelagagge,et al.  A methodological framework for innovation transfer to SMEs , 2002, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[34]  Koenraad Debackere,et al.  The Role of Academic Technology Transfer Organizations in Improving Industry Science Links , 2005 .

[35]  Ettore Bolisani,et al.  Knowledge-intensive transfer of innovation: e-commerce and small business , 2004, Int. J. Netw. Virtual Organisations.

[36]  Steven B. Andrews,et al.  Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition , 1995, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[37]  J. S. Long,et al.  Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables , 1997 .

[38]  R. Hassink.  Technology transfer agencies and regional economic development , 1996 .

[39]  G. Battese,et al.  A model for technical inefficiency effects in a stochastic frontier production function for panel data , 1995 .

[40]  Andrew B. Hargadon.  Brokering knowledge: Linking learning and innovation , 2002 .

[41]  T. A. Bryant,et al.  Technology brokers in the North American software industry: getting the most out of mismatched dyads , 1998 .

[42]  José Manuel Cordero-Ferrera,et al.  Measuring efficiency in education: an analysis of different approaches for incorporating non-discretionary inputs , 2008 .

[43]  Clayton M. Christensen.  The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail , 2013 .

[44]  Mike Wright,et al.  Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence , 2005 .

[45]  Phillip H. Phan,et al.  Analyzing the Effectiveness of University Technology Transfer: Implications for Entrepreneurship Education , 2005 .

[46]  T. Daim,et al.  Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer , 2007 .

[47]  W. Meeusen,et al.  Efficiency Estimation from Cobb-Douglas Production Functions with Composed Error , 1977 .

[48]  B. Carlsson,et al.  On the nature, function and composition of technological systems , 1991 .

[49]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[50]  Mark J. Roberts,et al.  Export Market Participation, Investments in R&D and Worker Training, and the Evolution of Firm Productivity , 2007 .

[51]  John Bessant,et al.  The rise and fall of `Supernet': a case study of technology transfer policy for smaller firms , 1999 .

[52]  H. Etzkowitz,et al.  The Future of the University and the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm , 2000 .

[53]  F. Tödtling,et al.  One size fits all?: Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach , 2005 .